Oscar,
yes - true, but there are also FCFS allocations, such a code point
allocation can be made for any document (also an individual draft).
/Loa
On 2014-09-18 13:12, OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS wrote:
Hi all,
I fully agree with the procedure suggested by Adrian.
@Fatai. I guess all drafts (stable or not), except those that have an
early allocation, will need to have a TBD value. A suggested value is
usually (mis)interpreted as ³this is the specified value, though not
official yet²
Best Regards,
Óscar
El 18/09/14 13:06, "Loa Andersson" <[email protected]> escribió:
Fatai,
I agree with you - I also don't think this is only for the PCE
working group but should be applicable to the entire rtg area.
/Loa
On 2014-09-18 10:53, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, I should say (2b) and (4), :-)
Best Regards
Fatai
-----Original Message-----
From: Fatai Zhang
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:32 PM
To: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
Hi Adrian,
I think the steps you proposed really make sense.
I have one comment for clarification on step (2a) and (4), did you mean
that it only needs to use "TBD" rather than the suggested values?
In addtion, for the new drafts (or non-existing drafts with clash), can
I re-order your steps as follows? :-)
1. Do not adopt any I-D as a working group draft if it specifies code
points.
2. In the future, when implementations of an I-D become advanced enough
to be close shipping or starting interop testing, use RFC 7120 to get
code points allocated.
Best Regards
Fatai
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
PCE working group,
draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis is fixing a clash between an IANA allocation
for RFC
7150 and an unallocated code point documented in a working group
Internet-Draft
that had been picked up and used by multiple implementations.
Another clash has just been pointed out to me between RFC 7150 and
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions.
The specifying of unallocated values in PCE I-Ds has got to stop before
significant clashes happen in the field. Cease! Desist! It is not
necessary, and
there is a simple solution to get code points if you need them.
Steps to be followed:
1. Identify all I-Ds that state or recommend values for code points
(see below).
2. Decide whether the values shown are needed to support existing
implementations.
2a. If so, make an immediate request to the WG chairs for early
allocation of
the code points using the procedures of RFC 7120.
2b. If not, make an immediate revision of the I-D removing the specific
code
point values.
3. In the future, when implementations of an I-D become advanced enough
to be
close shipping or starting interop testing, use RFC 7120 to get code
points
allocated.
4. Do not adopt any I-D as a working group draft if it specifies code
points.
Current drafts
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp specifies unallocated values
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls suggests values
draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp specifies an unallocated value
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce suggests multiple unallocated values
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations specifies and suggests
multiple
unallocated values
Recently-expired drafts
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions specifies multiple unallocated
values
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext recommends multiple unallocated values
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
proceda a sua destruição
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
